3 ms·
The philosophical argument in the Ruby community is basically that Ruby is not a statically typed language, period. And a strong contingent, myself included, do
by sparker72678 6y ago
The philosophical argument in the Ruby community is basically that Ruby is not a statically typed language, period. And a strong contingent, myself included, do not want a hybrid world where type annotations are optional, spattering redundancies all over our syntax. Mostly because I see that as a step in the direction of some kind of "strict" mode that will ultimately enforce type annotations and type-checking and destroy most of what I love about Ruby.
That's why the approaches being used keep the type annotations out of the source files themselves.
- jolux 6y agoThe best type definition languages do not introduce redundancies. They describe information that is not already in the implementation itself.
- ric2b 6y ago> I see that as a step in the direction of some kind of "strict" mode that will ultimately enforce type annotations and type-checking Ruby is not the first or the second or even the third dynamic language that has added static type checking support, has this _ever_ happened?
- captn3m0 6y agoPHP has a strict typing mode: https://www.brainbell.com/php/strict-type.html https://www.brainbell.com/php/strict-type.html